Now, there’s another paper predicting the cessation of global warming will last for more than another decade, with Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation-induced cooling in the Northern Hemisphere through 2027 (prompted by the North Atlantic Oscillation).

The twentieth century Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature (NHT) is characterized by a multidecadal warming–cooling–warming pattern followed by a flat trend since about 2000 (recent warming hiatus). Here we demonstrate that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is implicated as a useful predictor of NHT multidecadal variability. Observational analysis shows that the NAO leads both the detrended NHT and oceanic Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) by 15–20 years. Theoretical analysis illuminates that the NAO precedes NHT multidecadal variability through its delayed effect on the AMO due to the large thermal inertia associated with slow oceanic processes. A NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT [Northern Hemisphere Temperature], which gives an excellent hindcast for NHT in 1971–2011 with the recent flat trend well predicted. NHT in 2012–2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming.

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a sea level pressure-based index. Sea level pressures are related to wind patterns. And wind patterns impact how, where and when warm waters from the tropical Atlantic migrate north…which, in turn, impacts the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic as a whole. Li et al (2013) are basically saying that multidecadal changes in the sea level pressure and wind patterns in the North Atlantic are a useful predictor of multidecadal periods of warming and cooling in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.

It’s time for the IPCC to start thinking about cutting back on their predictions of future global warming by at least 50%. The public is catching on to the fact that if natural variability can stop global warming for 2 to 3 decades, then it also contributed to the warming from 1975 to the turn of the century—something the IPCC failed to account for in its projections.

127 thoughts on “Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade”

We have so many wonderful Canadians on WUWT, I hope you have a lovely Thanksgiving this coming Monday. This post is for you.

Maybe it’s because my great-grandmother came from New Brunswick.
Maybe it’s because so many of your fine accomplishments,
so many of your heroes,
go largely unsung.
All I know is that my heart goes out to you
as you gather
to give thanks.
I thank God, too, for you, Canada, our steady,
hard working, great hearted, neighbour to the north.

JOY, from then, and best wishes for much more
in all the years to come.
“God, save (your) land… .” (national anthem at 6:40)

Okay, but I’m afraid these guys are just trying to buy more time. Since the AMO has been positive there has been no trend in temperature so if we are to suppose the AMO has a large effect on NH temperatures then what’s left for CO2? I mean positive AMO + CO2 forcing = nearly zero?

Dr. Tisdale, can you answer a few questions if you have the time? If ENSO, or AMO or PDO don’t increase the earths energy budget they merely show transfers of heating energy then can’t we calibrate our global temperature data sets off their variations? If we were measuring all the heat correctly then wouldn’t an EL Niño be shown as an increase in temperature in one place and a decrease in another place with no trend change in a year. The heat didn’t just appear did it? It just circulated enough that we can measure it. Doesn’t that mean that we are essentially +-.4 or so degrees on our global temperature measurement when heat just appears from somewhere where we couldn’t see it to some place where we can see it?

this is a timely submission from my point of view.i have great interest in the NAO index,as it is the main driver of fish species biomass in uk waters due to the nutrient rich waters driving plankton species numbers up when the NAO is in its negative phase. the period of several years in the negative phase was believed to have led to what is termed the gadiod outburst, resulting in twenty years of well above average numbers of many fish species in uk waters.
much as global warming fans focus on co2, so marine biologists focus on commercial fishing as the main driver of fish numbers in the north atlantic.like co2 ,whilst having an effect,it appears to me, not to be anywhere near the effect of suitable plankton species availability for larvae and fry of all the main species of fish.
recently there has been an upturn in many species thought to be continually declining due to commercial over fishing,particularly in the north sea. according to many this should not be possible due to fishing capability increasing ,although the actual number of fishermen and boats have decreased in their thousands.

plankton availability can alter the amount of first year recruits by the order of billions per species,so the NAO trending negative has a greater impact than species quotas being altered by 10,000 tonnes here or there.

taking a cursory look at uk inshore water temperatures in the north sea, the trend in the last 6 or 7 years is down,this is to be expected with an increased flow of cooler water during the negative phase of the NAO.as an angler, i must be one of the few people that actually want it to get colder :)

As to the “peer-reviewed” article which tells us what we can already estimate, that is, “NOTHING”.

Shouldn’t WUWT consider a “doctorate” program?

Seriously, a WUWT University.

The blogoshpere is a new paradigm. Many postings here are REAL science. And, the REAL peer-review is awesome. So why not our own system of “select” individuals, properly “anointed”. There could be a system, open and accessible. People could be given degrees based on their research/papers.

The “ivy leagues” have failed us. Their corruption and perversion is well documented. A “higher” degree from WUWT could easily be worth much more than from some slanted, corrupt, other institution.

I was watching the Weather Channel while eating lunch today and for their tropical update they talked about what happened to the season (so far). One thing they put up was a slide claiming the AMO is lower or negative than it’s been. Well, they said colder than it’s been, and had the standard red(+) and blue(-) plot. Then pointed out how many fewer tropical storms happen during cold AMO periods.

Jim G above is correct. Without referring to a” offsets the anthropogenic induced warming” is required so it passes “peer ” review.
But it reveals the whole IPCC dilemma and weakness. By admitting that these cycles can offset supposed CO2 induced warming, the grant that the small arming from humans is similar to natural variation, and so is small, and not so harmful.
The whole not even sanctioning a specify climate sensitivity as in past assessments, vives reasonable skeptics and luke warmers confidence that an sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 leads to small increases where the warming is slightly helpful to some aspects of the planet.

Thankyou for the best wishes for Thanksgiving. I shall celebrate by the river with my lovely (american) wife.
Suzuki is an outlier of course, but he has really become a dire embarassment lately. Could they find a spot for him at Penn State do you think?

Heh, I have Suzuki nominated as number one in Pointman’s Prat of the Year awards.

But, every country has them, and Canada has certainly punched well above its weight in forcing honesty and integrity back up on the agenda in the Climate Wars.

Have a great day, Canadians!

(Do you eat turkey and pumpkin pie as well, or are there special delicacies of your own?)

Sorry, Bob. Thanks for this post, which along with Curry and Wyatt seems to signal a breakthrough in the research paradigm. After a long drought, some serious work is being done on trying to understand climate, instead of working from presuppositions. Even if it ends up being wrong, or only partially correct, it is at least a return to honest science and a genuine spirit of inquiry. Over at Judy Curry’s, co-author Wyatt got on the blog and answered numerous questions from readers about the paper, and did it frankly and politely. When was the last time that happened in relation to a peer-reviewed, published paper about climate?

No, NO, NO, the die hards, and that’s what they are, will yet again, discover how to cover their collective lies, with new theories, predictions, model output and a new consensus that yes, there is a pause, and were going to now proclaim that it will last longer, HOWEVER, believe us, warming will begin anew, and probably be much stronger. The media will listen, the EPA will push an agenda that the current prez could never get thru congress and the drum beat will go on. More heat will hide in the ocean, new maps will be colored orange and red to emphasize the scare and the left of liberal media will turn up their bull horns.

Seattle socialists will take this garbage agenda to their graves, they will NEVER admit they were wrong – that is the ONE thing you can make book on.

Let’s discuss the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures and the AMO for an example, because that was one of the topics of Li et al (2013). Wind patterns (reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)) impact the surface temperature of the North Atlantic. For example, let’s say the wind patterns are such that they change how water is transferred from the surface to the deep ocean (convection at the Labrador Sea per Li et al) and this causes a general warming of the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.

shenanigans24 says: “If we were measuring all the heat correctly then wouldn’t an EL Niño be shown as an increase in temperature in one place and a decrease in another place with no trend change in a year.”

The way your sentence is phrased I’m not sure if you’re confusing heat and temperature. They’re two different things.

Realistically, since Nov 1981, NOAA has done a good job of measuring sea surface temperatures globally with their satellite-based (or if you’d prefer, satellite-enhanced) Reynolds OI.v2 dataset. And ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific has been based on the TAO project buoys since the early 1990s, so since then, it’s reasonably accurate.

But back to your statement: An El Niño is a little more complex than you’ve described, but in some respects you’re correct about the El Niño simply relocating warm water.

An El Niño takes a vast amount of warm water from the surface and (very important) BELOW THE SURFACE of the western tropical Pacific and relocates it to the eastern tropical Pacific, increasing the amount of warm water on the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific (and the surface of the tropical Pacific as a whole). The volume of warm water in western tropical Pacific decreases. The SURFACE temperature there doesn’t decrease significantly, but the subsurface temperatures decrease in the western tropical Pacific. And the volume of warm water and surface temperatures both increase in the eastern tropical Pacific. So far you are correct.

However, with more warm water on the surface of the tropical Pacific during the El Niño, there is much more evaporation, so the tropical Pacific loses heat during the El Niño and the atmosphere gains it when all of that evaporated water condenses and turns into rain. Lower troposphere temperatures rise in response. Also, because all of that evaporation is taking place in the central and eastern tropical Pacific (instead of its normal place in the western tropical Pacific) the jet streams change location and that causes surface temperatures in some places around the globe to warm and others cool (with more places warming than cooling), and that surface warming takes place without a direct exchange of heat from the tropical Pacific.

shenanigans24 says: “If we were measuring all the heat correctly then wouldn’t an EL Niño be shown as an increase in temperature in one place and a decrease in another place with no trend change in a year.”

Again, you seem to be mixing heat and temperature. “Global surface temperature records” are a combination of sea surface temperatures and land surface air temperatures, not heat. For heat, we have ocean heat content data. But the key word in global surface temperature records is “surface”.

Back to the El Niño: An El Niño takes a huge volume of warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific (where it is not included in surface temperature records) and relocates it to the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific (where it’s now included in the surface temperature record). For example, the 1997/98 El Niño released so much warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific, that the sea surface temperatures for the entire East Pacific ocean temporarily warmed more than 0.5 deg C (0.9 deg F). That’s a huge volume of water, when you consider that the East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) covers about 33% of the surface of the global oceans.

The El Niño does not “consume” all of the warm water. After the El Niño, wind-driven ocean currents redistribute the left over warm water to the West Pacific, Indian and eventually the Atlantic Oceans, so the surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans simply shifted up about 0.2 deg C and remained there until the next big El Niño in 2009/10:
Strong El Niño events, in effect, provide a sunlight-fueled source of long-term global warming.

shenanigans24 says: “The heat didn’t just appear did it?”

Depends on how you want to define “just”. All of the warm water for the 1997/98 El Niño was created in about 12 months by the 1995/96 La Niña. And to show that, we’ll switch datasets to the ocean heat content for the tropical Pacific, which represents the heat stored there to depths of 700 meters. The 1995/96 La Niña caused the sharp rise that’s shown as the leading edge of the large spike in the mid-1990s. The 1997/98 shows the drop which is the trailing edge of the spike, and the 1998-01 La Niña is the rebound after it. So, in effect, the 1995/96 La Niña (with the help of the 1998-01 La Niña) caused an upward shift in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific.

shenanigans24 says: “It just circulated enough that we can measure it.”

Actually, we can measure it at the surface and below the surface, but at the surface it is included in the surface temperature record, and below the surface it’s included in the ocean heat content records.

due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming.

The authors are saying clearly that there is an anthropogenically induced warming, and it is only temporarily being offset. Which is why the opening sentence of the paper says

It is well-known that the Earth’s climate is warming, which has major global
implications for human well-being.

and a few lines further they repeat that the decadal variability is

…superimposed upon a long-term warming trend.

which later you can see because

…the resulting residual NHT is shown at the bottom of Figure 3. Evidently, the residual NHT is dominated by a nearly monotonic rise pattern, particularly the rise during the first half of the century and the persistent rise since 1950…

which is why instead of saying “stop”, like Bob Tisdale, they say (my bold)

the recent weakening of the NAO starting in the 1990s may result in a hiatus of the NHT warming over the next decade

and

The recent weakening of the NAO…will thus act to temporarily offset the anthropogenically induced warming trend…

and one more time in the conclusion, in case there was any doubt

…due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming…

Bob Tisdale can believe what he wants about natural processes. What the authors of this paper have actually said, though, is entirely consistent with mainstream climate science and never suggests that there is now or will be any “stop” in anthropogenically — not naturally — induced warming. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent their work.

That’s point blank admitting they were wrong. They’re trying to spin it, but it doesn’t work. If natural causes can offset it, then humans are no longer the primary cause of climate change (not that they ever were). It’s not catastrophic. Crisis averted.

An interesting paper, but I find the Wyatt paper much more in agreement with the understanding that you have presented to me Bob. This paper agrees with an internal variability that nets to zero over decadal time scales, rather than a natural variability that does not necessarily net to zero in decadal or even centennial time scale.

What Li et al. (2013) paper says is almost correct, but it is surely not novel or new.

The paper repeats almost exactly (but in a poorer way) the analysis and the demonstration about the NAO index and its quasi 60-year oscillation that matches the 60-year temperature oscillation with a lag-shift of about 15 year (that is a 90 degree lag-phase shift) already demonstrated in

So, as extensively demonstrated in my papers (since 2010), it is evident that if a 60-year oscillation exists, then the plateau until 2030s is a dynamical necessity demonstrated by me since 2009.

However, here there is a problem that is addressed in my paper with Mazzarella that Li et al. did not get.

Li would like to use NAO as a “predictor” for temperature changes. The ability to predict is however a consequence of the 60-year oscillation, not of the fact that NAO is a true “predictor”.

The predictor is “apparent” in the sense that Li did not realize that for physical reasons NAO (which is a pressure signal) is indirectly linked to the temperature anomaly via an integration algorithm.

In some way it is like the speed and the position of an oscillating signal that are described by a sin and a cos function with a 90 degree phase lag (= 15 year in a 60 year oscillation). So, if one would like to have an observable that can be directly compared with the temperature, NAO needs to be integrated first, as we did in our paper.

So, a priori it is not possible to use NAO as a “predictor” of the temperture after 15 years unless we already know that NAO is oscillating with a 60 year cycle which is something that Li does not demonstrate because they analyze data since 1900.

Fortunately in Mazzarella & Scafetta (2012) and Scafetta (2013) we analyze NAO since 1700 and the quasi 60 -year oscillation is pretty well evident. So, in our argument (based on a 300-year analysis) the projection is more plausible while in Li et al argument (based on a 110-year data) is more fortuitous.

In any case, the credibility of the future projection is based on the understanding of the physical origin of the 60-year oscillation, and the only proposed theory is in the 60-year solar/astronomical oscillation I proposed in my papers.

If global surface temperatures have not warmed since 2001, that means global warming stopped, it ceased. So my use of “stoppage” and “cessation” is correct. You may not like them, but they are correct.

Leo, are you aware that the only support for the hypothesis of human-induced global warming are climate models? Without climate models, we only know that surface temperatures have warmed. Are you aware that climate models can’t simulate surface temperatures? That they have to double the rate of sea surface temperature warming over the past 30 years in order to get land surface air temperatures close to where they’re supposed to be? Are you aware they can’t simulate precipitation? Are you aware that climate models can’t simulate sea ice in either hemisphere? I presented those failings in a bunch of posts over the past six months. Where have you been? You appear to be behind the times. I even wrote a book about how poorly climate models perform: “Climate Models Fail”:http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/new-book-climate-models-fail/
It’s selling quite well, thank you.

No, I’m not new here. I am well aware of your opinions. I am more concerned with the how the opinions expressed in published research are presented or misrepresented. You are free to use phrases like “stoppage” or “cessation”. The authors of the paper clearly did not, and they say things throughout the paper at odds with your beliefs. Do not bootstrap your opinions onto their work.

The authors of the paper say what Leo says. However that is based on several physical misconceptions due to their failure of understanding that the existence of a 60-year oscillation would fit the anthropogenic warming as it is now presented by the IPCC. This is not possible.

Because of the 60 year oscillation the anthropogenic warming needs to be reduced drastically (by about half) and additional natural cycles (e.g. the millennium oscillation) need to be added.

I do not want to be monotonous but all these issues are already discussed in my papers, e.g.

I would say take a bow Bob Tisdale, Dr. Scaffeta, and many others for long ago describing these important climate features. I have learned much from you, rather than these Johnny come lately’s to this undeniable observation discussion.

Bob, excellent post, but one teensy weensy nitpick: I’d want to see the IPCC go away and not issue any more predictions, whether down 50 percent or up minus 50 percent (sarc). But anyway, keep up the good work – you’re one of WUWT’s most valuable contributors in my book.

And to our Canadian friends – we’re pulling for you, including doing what we can to get this reptile in the White House to let the Keystone go forward, so you can get our petrodollars instead of those hatemongers in the Middle East.

Leo Geiger says: “You are free to use phrases like “stoppage” or “cessation”. The authors of the paper clearly did not, and they say things throughout the paper at odds with your beliefs. Do not bootstrap your opinions onto their work.”

Leo, you continue to be a little over-anxious about this.

My post in a nutshell: I quoted their abstract. Then I stated:
Li et al (2013) are basically saying that multidecadal changes in the sea level pressure and wind patterns in the North Atlantic are a useful predictor of multidecadal periods of warming and cooling in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.
Which brought me to the closing, which is basically: With the Marcia Wyatt’s statement and with the Li et al prediction, and with more papers past and surely to be coming with the same message, the IPCC needs to reconsider its projections.

I haven’t misrepresented Li et al, nor have I imposed my beliefs on their paper.

At best this is post hoc covering of asses here. While bob can say that indeed the warming has stopped something all sane people can agree…. along with AGW is BS from start to finish…

The reality is that this paper and the media that will spin it are simply running an excuse as to why they are wrong. The fact they are wrong is meaningless as that fact will be quickly buried and explained away by the propaganda friendly media and such.

I think bob has gotten a little excited over this paper thinking the media or anyone from the cultist camp will take 5 seconds and think about the reality of this paper instead of the spin of this paper.
When a cultists reads it they will see only that doom has been forestalled buy a few years giving us a lucky break to push through massive taxes to save the world.

These papers are designed to say anything to anyone so they can be spin effectively to any group.

I give you the money shot quote

Wyatt said. “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming.

We can and have said the IPCC is wrong but cultists don’t care… they are hooked on the latest doomsday claim… it matters not that every past claim has been proving wrong. This paper will have no meaning in the long run other then to be used as an excuse as to why past claims were wrong and now the NEW and IMPROVED claims MUST be true.

Cycles investigated included length of day index, North Pacific Index, Aleutian Low Pressure Index, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Southern Oscillation Index, global air surface temperature anomaly, and Atmospheric Circulation Index. Regarding the linkage between the Atlantic and Pacific, Klyashtorin (2001) states:
“If anchovy is withdrawn from the total Pacific catch, then the “out of phase” character of the catch dynamics in both oceans becomes clear (Figure 11.4). This “out of phase” character of the catch dynamics in the Atlantic and Pacific may be explained by the effect of the same global climatic process affecting both regions. In this system, the meridional-dependent commercial species dominate in the North Atlantic whereas zonal-dependent species dominate in the North Pacific.”

[begin quote]
Klyashtorin, L.B.
Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of forecasting.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO. 2001. 86p.
ABSTRACT
The main objective of the study was to develop a predictive model based on the observable correlation between well-known climate indices and fish production, and forecast the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks for 5–15 years ahead.
[…]
Spectral analysis of the time series of dT, ACI and Length Of Day (LOD) estimated from direct
observations (110-150 years) showed a clear 55-65 year periodicity. Spectral analysis of the
reconstructed time series of the air surface temperatures for the last 1500 years suggested the similar (55-60 year) periodicity. Analysis of 1600 years long reconstructed time series of sardine and anchovy biomass in Californian upwelling also revealed a regular 50-70 years fluctuation. Spectral analysis of the catch statistics of main commercial species for the last 50-100 years also showed cyclical fluctuations of about 55-years.
[end quote]

But Bob. A pause in warming proves nothing. According to the best climate science, global temperatures ought to be plummeting right now! With the associated alarming consequences:

“Depending on how cold the present 30-year cooling period gets, in addition to the higher death rates, we will have to contend with diminished growing seasons and increasing crop failures with food shortages in third world countries, increasing energy demands, changing environments, increasing medical costs from diseases (especially flu), increasing transportation costs and interruptions, and many other ramifications associated with colder climate.”https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/

Tectonic records in the N. Atlantic suggest SST cooling for at least 7 years aheadhttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
since any recovery in the SST can be gradual it may take as long as two decades; no further warming is envisaged before mid 2030s

I told you long ago the AMO is the integral of the NAO so no surprise. (the integral of a signal lags the signal by 1/4 period, 15-20 yrs in this case) http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4NH-NAOintegral.png
And it makes perfectly sense because positive NAO probably puts more sunlight into the North Atlantic. http://virakkraft.com/Sunshine-duration.pptx
The important question is what drove the NAO more and more positive after 1900? The sun or man? (same with the NPI, which is even more important globally)

I write to say that Leo Geiger (at October 12, 2013 at 7:03 pm) and Bob Tisdale’s response (at October 12, 2013 at 7:33 pm) are both right, and the difference in language of “pause” and “cessation” is important.

We are in a time of change and understanding the importance of the different language is important to understanding both the Li et al paper under discussion and the recent Wyatt & Curry paper.

I explained the importance of this language change on the thread about the Wyatt & Curry paper so, to avoid people needing to find it, I copy that post to here.

Richard

===================

richardscourtney
October 11, 2013 at 5:58 am

Solomon Green:

Your post at October 11, 2013 at 4:46 am asks

Whether or not the stadium wave signal hypothesis is correct Wyatt is making the assumption that the recent plateau/decline in global temperature is a “pause” and not the start of another cycle of cooling. What us the evidence for a “pause”?

The literal answer to your question is that there has been no discernible trend in global temperature at 95% confidence for at least the last 17 years but there was a discernible trend of global warming at 95% confidence for the previous 17 years.

However, the word “pause” implies an interruption to the global warming when the evidence only indicates that discernible global warming has stopped.

I am interpreting your question to be a query of the implication provided by the word “pause”, and I address that interpretation as follows.

The word “pause” implies that global warming will resume. However, that implication is not justified by the empirical evidence because a discernible trend of either global warming or global cooling can be expected to occur in future. Hence, the word “pause” implies knowledge of the future which does not exist. And that implied knowledge can be claimed to be inappropriate in a scientific discussion of the cause(s) of the existing lack of a discernible trend.

This brings us to the issue of paradigms. Scientists have a prevailing view of the appropriate theory (or theories) to adopt when conducting an analysis. Their choice of theory (or theories) is their paradigm. In hindsight it can be apparent that scientists may adhere strongly to a paradigm long after it has been surpassed by new understandings. For example, after the oxidation theory of combustion was experimentally demonstrated it did not supplant the phlogiston theory of combustion until a generation of scientists had passed away.

The prevailing paradigm in ‘climate science’ is that global temperature change is driven by radiative forcing changes induced by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) notably CO2 in the atmosphere. And GHG concentrations have continued to rise so according to that paradigm the global temperature will rise. Clearly, according to that paradigm the cessation of discernible global warming must be an interruption to the warming; i.e. it is a “pause”.

However, many people – including me – have never accepted that paradigm so we object to the word “pause” because it accepts that paradigm as a given.

This goes to the crux of the paper under discussion. The so-called “pause” is not explicable according to the radiative forcing paradigm alone and, therefore, the paper applies a modification to the paradigm; i.e. natural variations in the climate system can oscillate to add to or negate the warming. According to this modification the “stadium wave” has negated the warming for the last 17 years and will continue to negate it for decades in the future.

It follows from the above that the paper has two serious implications.

Firstly, and most importantly, the paper is a fall-back from the radiative forcing paradigm alone. This is typical of how paradigm shifts usually occur: the old paradigm is repeatedly modified to include unavoidable realities until the paradigm is replaced by another theory. In this case, those of us who always rejected the radiative forcing paradigm have consistently argued that natural variations in the climate were a more plausible explanation of the global warming that happened in the twentieth century (some GHG warming probably happened but was too small for it to be discernible).

So, the paper is a move from the radiative forcing paradigm alone. It incorporates some of the natural variation which those who refute that paradigm claim is responsible for discernible variations in global temperature.

Secondly, the “stadium wave” removes the suggestion of dangerous AGW. Assuming the modified radiative forcing paradigm is correct, it follows that the present “pause” was preceded by a period of warming which was enhanced by the “stadium wave”. Hence, the warming effect of GHGs over that warming period must be at most only half of the warming which occurred.

May I enter the debate about ‘stopping’ or ‘pausing’. I’m a heating engineer. You CAN say heating has stopped increasing as you don’t know if it is to continue. The factual statement you make at the time can prove to be incorrect long-term, but still accurate at the time. It’s all about present and future. Temperature hasn’t increased, it has therefore STOPPED WARMING, as ‘warming’ is a condition that must rise – if something is ‘warming’ then it’s rising in temperature. If warming picks up again then that cessation was indeed a pause in the warming period, a hiatus. If temperatures now fall (over the next decade or so) then it will be shown that warming did in fact stop. If you take your body temperature over the course of a day, your body warms up in bed in the dead of night, but as the morning approaches, the warming will stop. It then falls as you wake up – so the warming did indeed stop. If that pause actually turns around and you start to warm again then you have a fever…or you have left your car seat heating on again.

Ah, I see Richard was typing the same time as me, above. Indeed, a ‘pause’ cannot be known – as it is a future-based term. Something will either resume or stop. It is quite simply wrong AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME to say warming has ‘paused’, as it does indeed imply that you know the future.

“An El Niño takes a huge volume of warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific (where it is not included in surface temperature records) and relocates it to the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific”

I discovered this site whilst arguing on Facebook with a person who I thought wanted a genuine debate on the subject. He wasn’t. He only wanted to preach AGW, and alarmism.

I am approaching fifty, and in my time I have seen a number of alarmists marking scary statements. in the 1970’s we had an ice age coming. We had predictions that oil would run out in thirty years, we also had M.A.D. It struck me that “those in power” understand that if you keep a population in a state on constant threat and/or in fear then they are easy to control. Hence there is normally only “bad” news in the news.

For my mind the real issue is not the global temperature, but who controls the money behind the propaganda? The fact is oil & coal are a finite resource. I am willing to bet that the people ultimately behind the IPCC aren’t the politicians, but the power magnates. By driving up the scare tactics of global warming, through their many subsidiaries they get government money to develop renewable energy resources. Put bluntly they get the governments to pay them to develop ways to keep them in the power industry. They do not have to spend their own money finding a replacement for finite energy reserves.

Just my tuppence worth. And here is a link to a page that I wrote in response the SF author David Brin on the subject of Global Warming.

lgl says, with respect to warm water from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool coming to the surface during an El Nino: “Where’s the proof?”

ENSO basics, lgl. ENSO 101. Been showing it for years.

First, to confirm that the equatorial counter current strengthens during an El Niño and carries warm water from west to east.

From Chapter “3.5 The Transition from ENSO-Neutral to El Niño” of “Who Turned on the Heat?”
# # #
Figure 3-11 presents maps that show the direction of the currents in the central portion of the tropical Pacific. The eastward-flowing Equatorial Countercurrent is shown in dark blue. The westward-flowing North and South Equatorial Currents are shown in the off-color green. The top map shows the relatively small Equatorial Countercurrent in December 1996, which was an ENSO-neutral month. The bottom map shows that it’s much larger near the peak of the 1997/98 El Niño in December 1997. The maps are available through the NASA Ocean Motion website, at their OSCAR webpage.
# # #
Second, lgl, now let’s confirm that warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific flooded east and appeared on the surface:
From Chapter “3.6 – El Niño Phase” of “Who Turned on the Heat?”
# # #
We can also show that the sea surface temperatures warmed more in the eastern equatorial Pacific than they cooled in the west using a graph of sea surface temperature anomalies on a meridional-mean basis. See Figure 3-15. This implies that the surface waters in the western equatorial Pacific were responsible for only a small part of the warming of sea surface temperature anomalies in the east. The warm water had to come from somewhere, and if it wasn’t all supplied from the surface of the western tropical Pacific, it must have come from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool. Let’s confirm that.

Sea level anomalies represent, in part, the temperature of the column of water from the surface to the floor of the ocean. Figure 3-16 compares December 1996 (ENSO-neutral) and December 1997 (peak of the 1997/98 El Niño) sea level anomalies for the equatorial Pacific on a meridional-mean basis. As shown, the decrease in western equatorial sea level is comparable to the rise in sea level in the east. Because we’ve already established that the warm water in the east didn’t all come from the surface in the west, the change in sea level strongly suggests that the warm water that supplies the El Niño comes from the surface AND below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool. Also note how much sea level anomalies changed along the eastern equatorial Pacific between Decembers 1996 and 1997. At 85W longitude, the change was about 39 cm or 15 inches. A colossal volume of warm water changed location during the 1997/98 El Niño.

The sea level anomaly maps in Figure 3-17 help to show the effect of the 1997/98 El Niño had on the amount of warm water in the Pacific Warm Pool. Prior to the El Niño in December 1996, the sea level anomalies were slightly elevated north of Australia and along the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ) that extends to the southeast from the Pacific Warm Pool. Then, a year later, the Pacific Warm Pool anomalies dropped significantly, because the warm water was carried to the east, where it raised sea level anomalies. The maps also show that much more than the equatorial Pacific can be directly impacted by an El Niño.

For those who think that Marcia Wyatt’s claim that the standstill in the World’s mean temperature will last to 2030 is somehow new. Here is what I and my co-authors said in 2008.

Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
I. R. G. Wilson, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85–93http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm

“Interestingly, the Sun’s solar cycle has been in the phase
locked mode for the last 105 yr (1900–2005) and the
indications are that it is about to suffer another phase catastrophe
in the later part of cycle 24 (i.e. the solar cycle
that will peak in ∼2011–2012). If this is the case, then
we should expect that in the two decades following the
phase catastrophe, the world’s mean temperature should
be noticeably cooler i.e. the cooling should start in the late
2010s [i.e. it will last until at least 2030]. This claim is based on
the precedent that there were noticeable decreases in the
world’s mean temperature following the last two phase
catastrophes. The cool period know as the Dalton Minimum
(1800–1820) that followed the phase catastrophe in the
early 1790s and a similar cool period called the Victorian
Minimum (1880–1900) that followed the phase catastrophe
in the late 1870s.”

I am not sure whether you are referring to my post so apologies if I have misunderstood.
We stuck our collective necks out in 2006 and made the PREDICTION made in the above post despite it being almost totally ignored at the time.

It took two years and multiple rejections before we got it published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Our claim was not some retrospective prediction or projection. It was made when virtually no one in the main stream journals were predicting a cooling period [Of course, we were by means alone in making this prediction. there were others but they were few and far between].

We have not retracted our prediction [which is on the public record] that is based upon research done in 2005-2006 and we still standby what we have said.

I’ve been running temperature reconstructions using the AMO for many years now. The AMO is as critical these reconstructions as is the ENSO. Leave the AMO out, and all you get is a 60 year oscillation. I think it is driven by the Thermohaline Ocean Circulation system which will then exhibit various long, medium and short-term cycles in the AMO, most recently a prevalent 60 year cycle, but I imagine this varies some.

I’ve played around with North Atlantic Oscillation (and there are only about 10 different methods of measuring this) and I have not found any correlation nor predictability. For the most part, the NAO is just a random set of numbers that goes up and down with no patterns.

I’ve looked at all your links except the last one :-)
Thanks but still this does not prove your claim. One of the problems is all you need is a deepening of the thermocline starting in the west. Apparently a “huge volume of warm water” is moving to the east when in fact there is only a small vertical motion of warm water.

lgl says:
October 13, 2013 at 4:35 am
Bob
… Apparently a “huge volume of warm water” is moving to the east when in fact there is only a small vertical motion of warm water.
————————–
Its called the Pacific Equatorial UnderCurrent or Cromwell Current. At 100 to 300 metres depth, it is moving to the East at 5 kms/hour in places which makes it the fastest moving ocean current at this depth.

Animation of the last 30 days from the US Navy’s Hycom model. In this animation, Blue is to the West and Red/Yellow is to the East.

Like Ian Wilson, Piers Corbyn the British astrophysicist turned meteorologist has been predicting a cooling of the earth’s temperature for some time now, based on solar phases.

He also keeps making the point that there has essentially been no ‘global warming’ in living memory outside the falsified computer models, so the notion that there is a ‘pause’ is itself based on a misrepresentation.

Piers’ long term weather forecasts are the most accurate obtainable. His website is in dire need of a design overhaul, but he does know his stuff; and is in much demand at conferences of eg big business. The MET and the BBC of course refuse him any platform

Thanks, cool, but I don’t think it is.
“Its transport has thus been found to follow significant variations at ENSO timescale, with an increased (decreased) transport in La Niña (El Niño) phases”
which is the opposite of Bobs claim.

“A NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT [Northern Hemisphere Temperature], which gives an excellent hindcast …”

First of all, I have to believe that there isn’t much linearity in climate behavior. Secondly, hindcasting cannot validate a model. Only demonstrating the ability to make predicted future outcomes can validate a model.

Bill Illis says: October 13, 2013 at 4:34 am
I’ve played around with North Atlantic Oscillation (and there are only about 10 different methods of measuring this) and I have not found any correlation nor predictability. For the most part, the NAO is just a random set of numbers that goes up and down with no patterns.

Good. If the temperature standstill lasts another decade it should cover AR6. The only problem now is that they will say it was predicted. That is the issue with these new papers, it buys them more time while forgetting what they said about 15 years and 17 years being enough to force a re-examination of the assumptions built into the climate models. Falsify if you like.

>Have any of these people predicted a temperature fall? I don’t want to hear any retrospective predictions/projections after the event, not this time.

T Landscheidt predicted it repeatedly and also predicted a major drought in the US in 2018 and again in 2025. He died about 10 years ago. He method evolved over time but not much. It was similar to that proposed through (but not originally by) Dr Rodes Fairbridge. It centres on the rate of acceleration of the centre of the solar mass around the solar system barycenter. It is not quite as simple as is often portrayed. He felt the main predictor was the position of the centre of the solar mass relative to the physical centre of the sun (which position is moved by the change in the distance from the solar system barycenter. It changes solar activity – now about to be quiet for some years. Landscheidt predicted the El Nino of April 2003 more than 3 years in advance to within 4 weeks, having posted it publicly on John Dale’s website in 1999. He was at least partly right. The Farmer’s Almanac used this method, in part, as one of their three inputs for long range forecasts. Since they switched to ‘computer models’ their long range forecasts suck, however they were before.

About Wilson noticing
“For those who think that Marcia Wyatt’s claim that the standstill in the World’s mean temperature will last to 2030 is somehow new……. ”

I think that it is important to point out that the standstill was actually properly evaluated in my papers.
In fact, although Wilson and other have qualitatively conjectured a decrease of solar activity during these decades and other already knew about the 60-year cycle in the temperature record (e.g. Klyashtorin et al since 2001), to project a standstill one needs to quantitatively evaluate all relevant contributions and the result shown in some clear picture.

About Wyatt and Curry’s claim about the standstill, note that their paper does not really demonstrate it because it focuses only on the quasi 60-year oscillation patter. As said, to obtain the standstill one needs to evaluate all components, not just the 60-year cycle. Wyatt and Curry’s claim about the standstill is indeed based on my own results that they know very well although if they have not referenced them.

Note that also the idea of a synchronization of the various climate subsystems advanced in Wyatt and Curry paper was indeed first hypothesized in my

So we have people who after assessing the atmospheric and oceanic oscillations, are forecasting a standstill or cooling, people using signal theory forecasting cooling, people studying the jetstreams who are forecasting cooling, and we have solar scientists and astrophysicists forecasting the Sun going quiet leading to cooling.

lgl says: “’Its transport has thus been found to follow significant variations at ENSO timescale, with an increased (decreased) transport in La Niña (El Niño) phases’
which is the opposite of Bobs claim.”

Actually, I didn’t make a claim about the Pacific Equatorial UnderCurrent (EUC), so it does not contradict my claim.

In the following, they include many phases of an El Niño in one paragraph, so for those following the comments on this thread who aren’t intimate with ENSO, I’ve divided it and added headings in brackets. The answer to your earlier question (about warm water from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool being spread across the surface of the central and eastern tropical Pacific during an El Niño) is under the bracketed heading of EVOLUTION OF EL NIÑO.

Regards

####

The evolution of El Niño and La Niña can be seen in the SST, zonal wind, and 20°C isotherm depth (a proxy for thermocline depth) anomalies of the TAO/TRITON array data along the equator. Here we use the 1997/98 El Niño event to demonstrate the evolution of the eastern Pacific warm event (see Section 4 for the detail of difference between the eastern and central Pacific warm events). The TAO/TRITON moored data in Fig. 3 show that there is a close relationship among zonal wind anomalies, SST anomalies and thermocline depth anomalies. The importance of subsurface variation is clearly seen.

[BEFORE EL NIÑO]

Even one year in advance of the maximum surface warming, the precursor of El Niño is visible subsurface in the western Pacific (with positive thermocline anomalies) associated with westerly wind anomalies.

[EVOLUTION OF EL NIÑO]

The depression of the thermocline extends slowly from the west to the east along the equator. When warm subsurface temperature anomalies caused by the thermocline deepening reach the east, they are carried by equatorial upwelling to the surface.

[EL NIÑO STRENGTHENING DURING THE EVENT]

Once SST becomes anomalously warm, the Bjerknes feedback begins. The westerly wind anomalies in the central Pacific cause the eastern Pacific thermocline to deepen further, inducing additional warming. However, when the surface water is warm in the eastern Pacific, the shallower thermocline is seen as subsurface cold anomalies in the western Pacific (Fig. 3).

[DEMISE OF EL NIÑO]

Even during the development of an El Niño event, the seeds of its destruction are being sown in the western Pacific. The eastward extension of the subsurface cold anomalies brings the gradual erosion of the surface warm anomalies. This initiates a reversal of the chain of the Bjerknes feedback, which acts to drive the coupled system into a La Niña event.

“When warm subsurface temperature anomalies caused by the thermocline deepening reach the east” does not mean “An El Niño takes a huge volume of warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific and relocates it to the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific”
Repeating, “caused by the thermocline deepening”

lgl says: “‘When warm subsurface temperature anomalies caused by the thermocline deepening reach the east’ does not mean ‘An El Niño takes a huge volume of warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific and relocates it to the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific'”.

Read the next sentence from the quote, lgl. It reads:
“When warm subsurface temperature anomalies caused by the thermocline deepening reach the east, they are carried by equatorial upwelling to the surface.”

I am looking to be convinced that AGW is a myth or not a problem. I admit that currently I believe that on balance it isn’t a myth and is a problem. My background is in science, with a joint hons undergraduate degree in Math and Physics from the University of Nottingham, England and a post-graduate in applied statistics (operational research) from the London School of Economics.

Fire away – how can I be convinced? I’ve read “Climate – the Counter Consensus”, if that helps.

But to answer your question, AGW is not a problem because it is not a problem.

There is some speculative science (e.g. Francis and Vavrus 2012) that blames extreme weather in North America on arctic amplification. That is actually contrary to a long held consensus that global warming would shift storm tracks north, speed up the polar jet and decrease overall Rossby wave amplitude. With the old consensus science there was a positive feedback from less storminess. It remains to be seen how that positive feedback may be reduced if Francis et al are correct. Or if Francis et al are correct at all.

There is currently about an inch per decade of sea level rise which one could argue is now mostly manmade. The mitigation for sea level rise is the same as without sea level rise: we need to build surge barriers for vulnerable locations like New York City. Without sea level rise the surge from Sandy would have been arguably 8.5 feet instead of 9. The barrier solution is rather obvious although political. Also not incredibly expensive compared to the savings. The barrier is necessary whether or not sea level rise continues or accelerates. Barriers are not sized to average sea level in any case, they are sized to surges.

My final response is that extra CO2 in the atmosphere is a potential problem for ocean acidification and potentially also warming. There is still a lot of uncertainty in both. I would note that both warming (e.g. manifested in drought and heat waves) and acidification (lowered pH) are well within natural variability (the extremes have precedent). The costs are also uncertain. There are some net savings in the next few decades from warming here in the US and probably worldwide as well. After that, potentially, some costs. But those are too speculative to worry about right now.

I am looking to be convinced that AGW is a myth or not a problem. I admit that currently I believe that on balance it isn’t a myth and is a problem. My background is in science, with a joint hons undergraduate degree in Math and Physics from the University of Nottingham, England and a post-graduate in applied statistics (operational research) from the London School of Economics.

OK, I understand you to be saying you have the education which enables you to assess evidence and/or arguments which can convince that “AGW is a myth or not a problem”.

Obviously, you are the man I have been seeking, so please help me.

I am looking to be convinced that unicorns are a myth or not a problem. Please provide evidence that will convince me.

To show sincerity in my request, I list for you some of the evidence that AGW is a myth and not a problem.

Absence of discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) for at least the last 17 years despite continuing increase to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Missing ‘committed warming’ which IPCC AR4 predicted (n.b. not ‘projected’) from GHGs already in the system.

No alteration to the rates of global warming through the twentieth century before and after 1940 although more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions being after 1940.

Thank you all for your replies. Eric1skeptic: Yes, I have commented on Skeptical Science also, and indicated there that I am having this conversation on here. I don’t intend in engaging in trolling – please let me know if anything I say comes across as upsetting.

There is quite a lot of content in the responses, so if you don’t mind I’ll part some of it for now – we can come back to it later on. Parked items listed below.

Eric1skeptic, Good post. Would a correct summary of your post be that there are man-made effects of climate change / global warming (e.g. sea-level rise), but that these are too small and uncertain to be of concern / warrant action?

richardscourtney: would a correct summary of your post (ignoring the unicorns for a moment) be that the warming that we have seen does not seem to correlate with the increases in CO2, which therefore cannot be the cause? The “missing heat” you mention sounds interesting – I’d be very grateful if you could post a reference for that, please? And so we’re talking about the same thing, you mention no heat for at least 17 years. I’ve seen the argument that there has been no warming since 1998, but that was only 15 years ago, so I’m guessing you are referring to something else?

Parked items:
– Burden of proof;
– Francis & Vavrus 2012;
– The effect of sea-level rise on the height requirements for storm surge barriers;
– Projected costs after the next few decades;
– The existence of unicorns (sorry to hear you are worried about them);
– Tropospheric hot spot.

This means that the actual phase catastrophe occurred about half way between these two events
[when the phase lag would have been zero]. The actual date would be some time between 1794 and 1798 – though the precision is severly limited by the crudeness of the JS syzygy lag method.

“Jubble”, yes there are current effects. One is that global warming adds some amount to the high temperatures in heat waves. That might be as much as a few degrees F, although I would note that 21 out of 50 US State record highs are from the 1930’s, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes Those highs lack any urban heat island pollution that is responsible for the majority of new high temperature records currently. Heat waves start and end due to natural causes (weather) with no observed or (near term) predicted connection to AGW.

Along with that, those warmer temperatures add to drought. Like heat waves, it is important to note that drought patterns come from longer term natural weather patterns (e.g. La Nina causing drought in the U.S.). There is no evidence of increasing drought in the US, see figure 8 here: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15 The prediction for drought under AGW depends on expansion of the Hadley cells, but that is somewhat speculative because it may by trumped by geography (i.e. may not apply to continental North America).

There is speculation of increased floods, but no evidence other than somewhat abstract studies of rain gauge readings. The incidence of actual floods is flat, see fig 5 in the link above. The rest of the charts in that link show that “extreme” weather is mostly flat or a bit decreasing and the costs of extreme weather are mostly decreasing.

The future is quite uncertain, but part of the uncertainty is whether we stay in a lull (no global warming) or even get a bit of global cooling. It is a bit ironic that you posted in a thread about the possibility of cessation of global warming to ask about concerns about global warming. Why not ask about our concerns about global cooling?

The first step anyone should take who wants to understand climate issues is to study historic climate. You will find that there is nothing unusual going on at the present time. It was much warmer during much of the Holocene optimum and likely warmer during the Minoan WP, the Roman WP and the Medieval WP. It was also warmer during much of the previous interglacials such as the Eemian. Once a person understands we are not particularly warm at present, then the point about there being nothing to prove becomes obvious.

Recent climate changes just reinforces this point. The warming in the early 20th century matches that of the late 20th century despite 5 times less GHG emissions. The points where warming changes to cooling and vice versa match the changes in the PDO perfectly. The latest change occurring around 2005. See

The only prediction that alarmists can hang their hats on is the loss of Arctic sea/land ice which is easily explained by the AMO. Warmer water means less ice. The loss of ice has tracked perfectly and since the AMO will now generally trend downward over the next 30 years we are likely to see a upward trend in Arctic ice.

Does this mean there is no effect from GHG emission? No, but once you start to factor in the ocean cycles, what’s left is not significant and likely very beneficial to mankind. Slightly longer growing seasons, expanded agricultural acreage, higher growth rates leading to greater yields, reduction in extreme weather, etc.

Nicola Scafetta said:
October 13, 2013 at 9:23 am
In fact, although Wilson and other have qualitatively conjectured a decrease of solar activity during these decades.

No Nicola, If you look at figure 6 of our 2008 paper:

Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
I. R. G. Wilson, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85–93http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm

You will see that we gave a quantitative rule that enable people to calculate when phase catastrophes occur. We claimed that following the onset of a phase catastrophe, the intensity of solar sunspot cycle maximums would collapse for at least two solar (Schwabe) cycles.

Let’s apply the rule:

Solar Cycle 23 Maximum (from monthly smoothed SSN)__________Mar 2000
Syzygy of Jupiter and Saturn (Both on same side of the Sun)______Jun 2000
So the syzygy phase lag is ~ 0 years

Syzygy of Jupiter and Saturn (Both on opposite sides of the Sun)__Feb 2011
Solar Cycle 24 Maximum (rough estimate)____________________Sept 2013
So the syzygy phase lag is ~ 2 1/2 years after maximum.

This indicates that Solar phase catastrophe occurred some time in the early 2000’s
and that maximums for both cycle 24 and cycle 25 would be considerably below normal.

I provided an answer to your original question and asked you an equivalent question in return. Your reply to me at October 14, 2013 at 5:37 am says in total.

richardscourtney: would a correct summary of your post (ignoring the unicorns for a moment) be that the warming that we have seen does not seem to correlate with the increases in CO2, which therefore cannot be the cause? The “missing heat” you mention sounds interesting – I’d be very grateful if you could post a reference for that, please? And so we’re talking about the same thing, you mention no heat for at least 17 years. I’ve seen the argument that there has been no warming since 1998, but that was only 15 years ago, so I’m guessing you are referring to something else?

Parked items:
– Burden of proof;
– Francis & Vavrus 2012;
– The effect of sea-level rise on the height requirements for storm surge barriers;
– Projected costs after the next few decades;
– The existence of unicorns (sorry to hear you are worried about them);
– Tropospheric hot spot.

I deal with your “Parked items” first.

To begin, I am disappointed at your failure to address my question to you. I gave you the courtesy of answering your question but you have not responded in kind to mine. But my question was my most significant point (which may be why you have avoided it).

You asked for evidence to dispel an assertion of an assertion which can be considered a myth; i.e. AGW.
I asked for evidence to dispel an assertion of an assertion which can be considered a myth; i.e. unicorns.
In both cases the responsibility is on the person alleging the putative ‘threat’ exists and nobody has a responsibility to accept the allegation is a ‘truth’ which can be disproved: this is because it is a logical impossibility to disprove a negative.

But in your “Parked items” you add to your list of assertions that have no foundation and you stick on the end my point about the missing tropospheric ‘hot spot’. There can be no future costs and no “projected” effects of something which does not exist.

There can be no future effects of something which does not exist and there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – for the existence AGW (or unicorns) but there is much evidence that AGW as emulated by climate models does not exist.
I listed some of that evidence.

And that brings us to your response to my evidence which you have provided.

Your post does not mention (a) the missing “committed warming” and (b) the lack of accelerated warming before and after 1940 and “Parks” the missing tropospheric ‘hot spot’ all of which I cited as evidence of lack of AGW (I think I understand why). But your post asks me three questions on other matters. I address each of your questions in turn.

Q1

would a correct summary of your post (ignoring the unicorns for a moment) be that the warming that we have seen does not seem to correlate with the increases in CO2, which therefore cannot be the cause?

No. That is an obvious distortion and misrepresentation of my post.

The AGW hypothesis asserts that anthropogenic (i.e. from human activity) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) will overwhelm the climate system to induce global warming because atmospheric CO2 concentrations of GHGs govern global temperature. Both the anthropogenic emissions and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have continued to increase but there has been no discernible (at 95% confidence) rise in global temperature for 17 years.

Q2

The “missing heat” you mention sounds interesting – I’d be very grateful if you could post a reference for that, please?

I am surprised that you claim you do not know. A good start on your education about this would be to use the Search facility on the front page of WUWT. Enter ‘Trenberth missing heat’ and you will obtain a list of articles which include all the information, links and references you may require.
Q3

And so we’re talking about the same thing, you mention no heat for at least 17 years. I’ve seen the argument that there has been no warming since 1998, but that was only 15 years ago, so I’m guessing you are referring to something else?

Again, you misrepresent what I wrote. I did not mention “heat”: I cited as evidence

Absence of discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) for at least the last 17 years despite continuing increase to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

There has been no discernible change in global temperature (at 95% confidence) for at least the last 17 years according all data sets (RSS says the last 22 years). But there was discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) for the previous 17 years according all data sets.Discernible global warming has stopped.

But atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from 362 ppmv to 395 ppmv (i.e. an increase of more than 9%) over the last 17 years.

A change in global temperature is certain to occur in future. But it is not known if that change will be a resumption of warming towards the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the initiation of cooling towards the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.

In your post I am answering, you tell Eric1skeptic that you are not a troll. Frankly, your post I am replying does not convince me of that.

You are among the ranks of the sane, here, including some real Science Giants (some for the immensity of their knowledge, others for their valiantly steadfast and enthusiastic support of Truth).

Keep posting and….

HAVE FUN!

FYI: 0n the right side of the page, see “Ric Werme’s Guide” for some posting tips. Also, here are some words (abbreviated) to not spell out to avoid auto-moderation (I have no idea what all of them are!): A-th-n-y… e-v–il… i–zll-ah-mm… h-tl-r … m-der-a-tor… f-r-au–d… M-an-n… (of COURSE the one followed the other, lol)… — that’s all I can think of. If you post a YouTube video link, sometimes it becomes a mini-movie screen with control knobs, other times, it remains an http link. Shrug.

Hope that’s helpful.

Glad you’re here!

Janice

P.S. Don’t sweat typos — if someone nitpicks, jus laguht at them1 — even the best, here, do it sometimes. Mostly, they are fun.

@John Bell(gible?)lol, well. You are to be commended for your gracious response. Do persevere in discovering the facts and data about AGW. And, don’t be a stranger!

Say… I just quickly visited your earnest, friendly, blog. Hey, if being “low (CO2, I presume) impact” on the environment is your religion or personal philosophy of life, go for it. Just do bear in mind that you are not acting on what science, i.e., real world observations, has revealed about what causes changes in Earth’s climate. No one on WUWT would, by the way, begrudge you your personal lifestyle choice and many would admire your integrity. What we (if I may speak for the others to any significant degree and I think on this I can) oppose (strongly!) is anyone imposing by state fiat their “religion” on others. There are other bloggers on this site who choose, like you, to live “environmentally friendly” lives. I think “Konrad” and “Caleb” and “A. D. Everard” and “chemman” (the last two may not be doing it by choice, I’m not sure) are some of them. And, as you may already know, our wonderful host, A-th-y is into solar panels and owns an electric car.

Enjoy your simpler lifestyle, Mr. Bell, for its own sake. Don’t adopt it mainly to “save the planet,” however, for you are depriving yourself, thus, for nothing. Of course, as I said before, if it is your religious belief, that is not “nothing” and I have nothing to say about that except: be true to what you believe in.

John, I skimmed through your blog and I agree with Janice. There are meritorious reasons to live a low carbon life style. First as you would probably point out, the atmosphere is a commons and we ought to try not to fill it with CO2 regardless of the consequences. Second, living a life of savings and deferred consumption is not only good for the environment but also good for the economy (which most politicians and people like Ben Bernanke fail to understand). Third, the convergence of simplicity and productive technology (with ever-lower power consumption) is one of mankind’s greatest accomplishments.

There are also a lot of bad reasons to live a low carbon lifestyle, some of which you mention in your blog. One is “equality”. You mentioned in one post that it should not matter as human beings whether we are born in America in 1920 or Bangladesh in 2045. But it does matter. I will let you figure out why yourself.

My own life is pretty simple and last month’s electricity usage was down to 151 kWh which includes well water and a septic pump, mainly because it is fall with no heating or cooling. I removed my last abominable burned out CFL and replaced it with LED. In that there’s a small lesson. Government strongly encouraged the use of CFLs thanks in part to AGW zealots. But they turn out to have very short lifespans when the power is unreliable and that is where we are headed thanks to the same zealotry. The LED lights promise to be a lot better. But switching to CFLs which will now pollute our groundwater for centuries turned out to be a disaster.

I also unplugged my large side-by-side freezer/friidge and replaced it with a table-top fridge. I have had solar panels and batteries for incidentals (computer, internet, weather station, etc) for years. I am an engineer and designed and installed things like that myself.

Your blog posts indicate that you are a good example for the world. My advice for you is to be a good example but not a zealot.

Janice & Eric1skeptic: Thank you very much for your thoughtful words. You have made me feel welcome and for that I am very grateful. You have re-affirmed my belief in humanity.

I agree with you both – treating AGW (or skepticism for that matter) as a religion would not be the right thing to do. I remain open as always and will look at the arguments placed here objectively.

It is difficult not to appear zealotry, especially in the written word where emotional intent can often be lost or misinterpreted. I understand why some thought, may still think, that I am trolling, but I hope that feeling is dispelled, as it is truly not my intention.

As for religion, not that it is relevant, I class myself as an active agnostic – I am looking for God, but have not yet found Him, or recognized that I have.

BTW, here’s my bill: http://shpud.com/electricbill.jpg I scanned and posted it to point out that, unlike your country, we have not (yet) chosen to intentionally force our less fortunate citizens into choosing between heating and eating. That is in contrast to your insane schemes of burning woodchips imported from America, subsidized windmills, rooftop solar, etc. Since I am an engineer with solid knowledge of power systems, I know the difference between sense and nonsense when it comes to power generation. I will never, for example, fill the grid with my power from solar at a subsidized rate when I know how unreliable and worthless it is compared to baseload power.

Please be assured that, of course, you are welcome here. Everybody is welcome to WUWT when they come here to present their views openly and honestly.

Unfortunately, many come here to dishonestly derail threads with intent to prevent open discussion as a method to support – or at least to prevent question of – their belief in AGW. I understood your first two posts to be indicative of such behaviour, and I said that when I concluded my post to you at October 14, 2013 at 6:47 am by writing

In your post I am answering, you tell Eric1skeptic that you are not a troll. Frankly, your post I am replying does not convince me of that.

It pleases me that your subsequent posts have convinced me you are not a troll. So, I am now joining Janice and Eric in providing you with sincere welcome to the WUWT ‘community’.

I look forward to spirited debate between us when you have done what you call your “further research”. I think you will find great help in that “further research” is available by use of the WUWT Search facility, the Tools, and the links to both ‘pro’ and ‘con’ AGW web sites which are on the WUWT Front Page. Also, if you have difficulty in finding specific information I and others in the WUWT community will do what we can to help if you say what you seek.

I ask you to note that you are being welcomed here and challenged to present and justify your views here, and I ask you to compare that with how pro-AGW web sites treat ‘dissenters’ from their ideas.

Hey, Jubble (cute — I suppose those were the direct descendants of the same fellows who came up with the amazing pronunciation of Cholmondeley (sp?) (“Chumbly” for anyone who hasn’t read that bit of English trivia)), no, I shouldn’t call you that, I mean, Mr. Bell, thanks for responding. I am convinced (from what the Scriptures tell us) that all who sincerely seek God will find God. It’s only a matter of time. (and, in your ear, I’ll be praying for you)

**************
Eric — what a thorough, conscientious, informative, post. I enjoyed reading it. We have some very cool people on WUWT (you are one of them).
*************************************
Hi, Richard! Hope all is well. How is she?

Anthony, why do you insist on calling this mollusk “Dr.?” If he ever had a doctorate, surely he has forfeited it by his actions. I understand your wish to maintain professional decorum, but stepping on a snail is not a breach of it.
BTW – I hold a PhD, but I do not go around announcing myself as “Dr.” Only in an academic setting would I do that.